Stone & Others v. Illinois Central Railroad Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the Illinois Central Railroad Company and a group of landowners who had been granted land by the state of Illinois in 1851. The railroad company had been granted a right-of-way through the land in 1852, and the landowners argued that the railroad had not paid them for the use of their land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landowners, finding that the railroad had not paid them for the use of their land and that the state of Illinois had not given the railroad company the right to use the land without compensation. The Court also held that the landowners were entitled to compensation for the use of their land, and that the railroad company was liable for the damages caused by its use of the land. The Court's decision established the principle that private landowners have the right to be compensated for the use of their land by public entities.

In Stone & Others v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving federal law. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and thus dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while Congress has exclusive authority over certain matters of national importance such as foreign affairs and interstate commerce, it does not have exclusive control over all areas of law; rather states can still exercise their own powers in other areas where Congress has not legislated or preempted them. He argued further that since there is no express provision in any act of Congress prohibiting suits against railroad companies for injuries sustained by employees under federal laws regulating railroads, then it follows logically that such cases should be heard by state courts which are better suited to decide questions arising out of local circumstances than those originating at Washington D.C.. Therefore he concluded that the lower court's judgment should be affirmed on appeal because they were within their rights to hear this case involving federal law despite its lack of explicit authorization from Congress